Two seemingly unrelated stories in today’s papers:
Sky-rocketing real estate prices in desirable areas creating super-wealthy enclaves
In a city where property is increasingly at a premium, the rarity of a neighbourhood of large lots just blocks away from a major transit artery makes for dramatically increasing property values. ….
One of the most visible characteristics shared by the city’s most desirable enclaves is access to transit: The majority of the city’s richest neighbourhoods are on or very near subway lines; only 19 of the city’s 68 subway stations are within or near low-income neighbourhoods.
This is one reason why discussions around income disparities keep coming back to transit: That’s what helps make affluent neighbourhoods desirable, and that’s what policy makers keep hoping will aid areas of the city that risk becoming no-go zones because there’s nowhere to go (or no way to get there).
Urgent upgrade pushed for Fraser Valley transit to deal with huge population growth
The Fraser Valley — considered to be one of the fastest-growing regions in British Columbia — urgently needs a transit overhaul, but upgrading the bus system would be cheaper than building a commuter rail service, concludes a new provincial report….
Driving the debate for a rail network is the concern over rapid population growth. The Fraser Valley is home to more than 263,000 residents living in six municipalities, but over the next 25 years, the population is expected to increase by 70 per cent. …
While the report didn’t rule out the possibility of an expanded rail network in the future, and even suggested preserving rail corridors, it concluded the best option is to create a premium express bus service on Highway 1 in dedicated lanes and expand local transit in the municipalities….
The connection? As wealth concentrates around transit in slow-growing Vancouver, where does the poverty go? Increasingly to the fast-growing suburbs where transit constitutes only 1 percent of the travel mode, in part because of the inadequacy of the system.
And what are we building out there? Why, Gateway of course – widened roads and bridges, guaranteed to lock the next generation into their cars – and for many, into poverty.
Why was the “premium express bus service on Highway 1” not part of the budget for the Port Mann / Highway 1 project, or for that matter on the Sea-to-Sky Highway? Why are we even debating whether rapid-transit should be extended first to UBC, through some of the most affluent (and anti-growth) neighbourhoods in the region, when the need is so apparent as a priority – for social and transportation reasons – south of the Fraser?
And most importantly, why are not our provincial leaders (or leadership hopefuls) not crawling over each other to make commitments for improved transit – and secure funding – as part of their campaigns? If it doesn’t happen now, what hope is there after the elections, when rail and bus become increasingly uncompetitive with the forces unleashed by the Gateway and arterial road expansion? And the poverty that is pushed out to the no-go zones becomes increasingly invisible.
Hey! I haven’t been kicked out of my low-rent home near Mount Pleasant yet, and I certainly don’t want to have to be. And you of all people should know there’s money to do both simaltaneously, the only problem is the government spent the share belonging to south of the Fraser on the wrong project – that being Gateway. Why should we spend $3 billion in one area just to spend $3 billion on skytrain in the same area (with none in the other) when the gateway project practically ensures that the second investment won’t be as effective? I think light rail especially could work wonders for Surrey, or possibly a short skytrain extension (not to langley), and would love to see this built at the same time as transit to at least Central Broadway, but not before if it means central broadway gets pushed back and certainly not instead of.
And since transit, especially effective rapid transit, has a gentrifying effect on its own, as is mentioned in the post (those neighbourhoods in Toronto are expensive because of transit, they don’t have transit because they’re expensive, and many were affordable until they were gentrified partly resulting from the subway), then if we expand rapid transit in Surrey, won’t that just help gentrify those areas as well? And it’s not like all of Surrey is poor, either.
And while the Westside may be somewhat growth resistent (certainly central Broadway and Mount Pleasant, with condos sprouting up all over the place, isn’t “growth resistent”), the westside is already much denser than most of Surrey, and that’s the least densest area on the proposed line.
With adequate and cheap transit in the central areas and burnaby, even with higher prices it’s cheaper because you don’t need a car at all. But transit at UBC can’t even keep up, and there are certainly people who refuse to take it now because they don’t feel like groping and being groped. And what about poor students who attend UBC but have to live in Surrey because of the problems you’re talking about? They still have to ride the B-Line.
And then what about people going from Richmond to Burnaby and vice-versa. The lack of connection between the Millenium Line and the Canada Line severely limits the network effect and the usefullness of both lines. Cross-suburban transit is just as important as those heading downtown.
Yes, let’s build rapid transit in Surrey and Coquitlam to “shape” the region, but levt’s not steal the money from already developed areas. Real-estate bubbles don’t last foreer.
Of course, the better strategy would have been to spend all the money going to gateway on transit south of the fraser, which would have been awesome. You’re right in that it doesn’t look like that will change any time soon, with the current crop of Campbell clones all vying for the top job. But please don’t turn this into a battle of “Surrey deserves this more than UBC” because that’s then how the debate gets framed, rather than “transit deserves funds far more than highways,” which is what it should be, and what I’m trying to point out, even though because of the original post I feel compelled to defend the project in my neighbourhood (note the disclaimer on my bias).
Exactly! The Canada Line is a good example of transit going where it isn’t needed, or not needed as much as in other areas. We got the Canada Line because YVR wanted it and threw in a lot of money. Local mayors knew this, but they were over ruled by the province. (Mind you, for me it’s great–two blocks away and I can get downtown in ten minutes. But I don’t really need that, our bus service was fine.)
We need fixed rail–Skytrain or something like it–out the Fraser Valley to guide growth and at least begin to counter suburban sprawl. Buses are cheaper, but developers don’t build density based on bus lines that can be here today, gone tomorrow. There has to be permanent transit.
Neale, you’re saying that dense communities deserve an unsufficient B-line while sprawling communities deserve an expensive rail service? Where’s the logic? Why should we punish sustainable communities and reward car-oriented ones? Where’s the incentive to build “right” then? You’re giving Surrey a free pass to build sprawl and then later demand rapid transit to curb its sprawl.
What the communities south of the fraser need to do is to stop building cul-de-sacs, business parks and big box stores.
Vancouver was able to build dense transit-oriented communities before rapid transit came in its neighbourhood, the communities south of the fraser should do the same.
And no, the 98 and 99 B-lines in Vancouver are not sufficient to meet demands. That’s why the Canada Line needed to replace the 98 and why the UBC Line needs to replace the 99. People need to stop thinking the whole region deserves equal transit service. There’s a good reason why Vancouver has much better transit than other sprawling parts of the region.
What the communities south of the fraser need is better local buses, then rapid buses along certain corridors, then perminent rapid transit… similar to the order of transit expansion in Vancouver. I don’t see why communities south of the fraser should jump the queque and get rapid transit without first developing a proven transit base, like what the B-lines have done.
@Haga, technically in Vancouver transit came before development, as in the streetcar suburbs of the early 20th century, which largely drove development. Certainly transit has the ability to shape development, as the skytrain has proven. Where I do agree with you is that transit areas where upgrades are needed simply to meet the current demand shouldn’t have their rapid transit set back to provide skytrain somewhere else instead, and that transit needs to be scaled to each community.
@Neale: Actually, the Richmond corridor has long been seen as the corridor with the most potential for current ridership, even as far back as the 1990’s when the province and mayors were studying the issue of the millenium line. The plan was always for rapid transit to Coquitlam (then referred to as a T, a line through north Burnaby which would end at a spur from the Expo to Coquitlam) and then, after that, the Richmond line. The recent debate was largely about the route through Vancouver, that is Cambie or Arbutus, the technology, the PPP and the funding. If you’re in Vancouver you might not *need* the Canada Line, though there are many who would drive if it weren’t for the Canada Line and the people in Richmond have certainly seen a benefit from the service.
As for Skytrain in the Fraser Valley, just no, at least not further than Surrey. Light rail in the valley makes total sense, and a rail service could work as far as Coquitlam in my view (especially if it were built instead of the highway improvements now under construction), but in some areas skytrain is unnecessarily expensive. That, and I think we need to recognize most south of the Fraser trips begin and end in South of the Fraser, so they ought to have transit oriented towards those trips, not necessarily into downtown Vancouver.
I think Neale’s point is – do you spend rapid transit money to make a small incremental difference in transit time and quality of transit experience for a large number of people close to downtown (i.e. saving 10 min), or do you do so for a fewer (but rapidly growing) number of people who would benefit more significantly from the rapid transit expenditure in both time savings and quality of transit experience in the suburbs (i.e. saving 30 min or even an hour)?
Now layer that question onto the chicken and egg question of rapid transit serving existing growth or future growth (particularly if the area closer to downtown is resistant to growth).
BTW – some areas of Langley and Surrey are likely denser than typcal single family areas in Vancouver, since there seems to be many new areas of townhome tract housing in Langley and Surrey (and Richmond) than there are in Vancouver). i.e. just like the trend is for condos to get smaller and more dense, likewise, new houses and townhouses are being packed into sites very tightly – so new developments out in the suburbs may be denser than older established single family areas in Vancouver and Burnaby (which aren’t being redeveloped).
i.e.
Townhomes near Morgan Crossing (South Surrey):
http://www.globalairphotos.com/large/BC/Surrey/South/2010/0216/2
Langley Willowbrook:
http://www.globalairphotos.com/large/BC/Langley/Willowbrook/2008/141/2